Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It is becoming increasingly difficult to define the borders between areas of medical practice, yet there continues to be a tendency to develop organizations focusing on even smaller levels of specialization. Our own field of transfusion medicine is certainly not immune from this tendency. This is why it is especially gratifying to see an example of effective cooperation between groups. In this issue of TRANSFUSION, there is a valuable report that categorizes indications for therapeutic apheresis.1 The report has been jointly prepared and endorsed by the AABB and the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) through their respective committees. As the authors rightly state: “… it may be considered a model for collaborative efforts between professional medical societies with important mutual interests …”. The range of conditions cited in this paper is wide and encompasses patients primarily treated by physicians from many other specialties. Not only does this draw attention to the critical breadth and role of apheresis and transfusion in modern medicine, but it also focuses us on the patient as the primary beneficiary of our efforts. Indeed, the needs and welfare of the patient are explicit in the mission of both organizations. A key role for both societies is to help other physicians understand what our own disciplines can and, perhaps more importantly, cannot offer. Clearly, the AABB–ASFA paper is a valuable example of such guidance. We are also pleased that the report has been published in TRANSFUSION, as this clearly emphasizes the nature of the collaboration and will also broaden the immediate audience for the work. Fortunately, all journals are widely accessible to a very broad audience as a result of electronic publishing and indexing, so it is to be hoped that this information will ultimately influence a wide range of physicians. It is clear that there are many other therapies in which our two societies have common interests. The collection and use of HPCs, immune effectors and cells for genetic manipulation require the methods and skills of both specialties. Increasingly, transfusionists are dependent on blood components routinely collected by apheresis. This applies not only to platelets, but more and more to RBCs and of course to less common therapies such as granulocyte transfusions. Surely we must work together in these areas. The AABB believes it has much to offer in the development of quality-based standards, and in assessment against them. The AABB currently has standards relating to the collection and use of blood, the collection and use of HPCs, and perioperative blood collection and transfusion. ASFA has skills and expertise in the field of apheresis. Perhaps the two associations could consider the possibility of working jointly toward standards and assessment programs for therapeutic apheresis. In summary, we believe that our two associations have worked effectively and productively together to produce a useful guide for those responsible for prescribing and performing therapeutic apheresis. As we commit to continue to work together, we hope that this will indeed serve as a model for future interactions, not only between our own organizations, but also among many others.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,011 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,018 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,457 | 0,409 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».